1.0 tasks #267

gregwebs opened this Issue Feb 12, 2012 · 11 comments


None yet
2 participants

gregwebs commented Feb 12, 2012

remove yepnopeJs from Yesod typeclass


gregwebs commented Feb 15, 2012

remove encryptKey and clientSessionDuration from Yesod typeclass (after session branch merges)


gregwebs commented Feb 16, 2012

decide if switching default from RootR to HomeR


gregwebs commented Feb 17, 2012

determine if the admin site is mature enough to be included in the scaffold.


snoyberg commented Feb 22, 2012

Persistent: no deriving by default


gregwebs commented Mar 5, 2012

Give a proper name in development mode to files that will be hashed in production: http://groups.google.com/group/yesodweb/browse_thread/thread/baaa04cc38a3db48


gregwebs commented Mar 10, 2012

get rid of Julius and just call it Js/Javascript (Michael willing)

@snoyberg snoyberg added a commit to yesodweb/persistent that referenced this issue Mar 12, 2012

@snoyberg snoyberg Turn off deriving by default (yesodweb/yesod#267) f0e78d3

snoyberg commented Mar 12, 2012

I don't want to go through the Julius rename: we've discussed it before, and I think it's just a bunch of breakage with no tangible benefit. I also think it's useful to have a name to describe the "language", even if it's just a passthrough language.

I'm also concerned about the proper name instead of hashes. In addition to what I said in the mailing list thread, I realized something else: what happens if the same route generates different CSS or JS depending on parameters? It's entirely possible to have different CSS for different users, for example.

Unfortunately, I don't think the admin site will be ready in time for 1.0. I'm likewise uncertain of the yesod-test stuff. Both of those are great candidates for a solid 1.1 release.

Unless someone objects strongly, I'll make the switch to HomeR.

@snoyberg snoyberg added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 12, 2012

@snoyberg snoyberg RootR to HomeR #267 5b07edd

gregwebs commented Mar 12, 2012

we should merge the test stuff unless there is a concrete reason not to. Please leave comments about your reservations on the pull request.


snoyberg commented Mar 12, 2012

Sorry, my statement above was way to FUD-y. I have no concrete objections, I'm just worried about bitrot at this point. If we can get it merged in, that's great, but it may be premature to include all of that code in the scaffolding if we haven't thoroughly analyzed it.


snoyberg commented Mar 15, 2012

AFAICT, all issues that will be addressed for 1.0 and don't have their own issues have been resolved. I'm going to close, please reopen if I'm mistaken.

snoyberg closed this Mar 15, 2012


gregwebs commented Mar 15, 2012

I believe hashed file names in development was not addressed. opened #293

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment